Browser (debug): inspect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the description's 'Read-only' is largely redundant. What the description adds beyond structured data is the output contract (returns ports/tabs/tree entries) and the ref handoff to the act router, which is genuinely useful behavioral context for a debug-inspection tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, followed by the read-only flag, the sibling routing, and the return/ref note. No wasted sentences, though the clauses are dense and a few fragment-style enumerations make it slightly longer than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return shape (ports/tabs/tree entries) and the ref-to-act pipeline. Combined with the complete per-action enum documentation, an agent has enough to call and chain the tool correctly; only minor gaps remain around pagination or error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum fully documents each action's required parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only alludes to passing a ref to the act router and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (inspect) and scoped resource (NAVIG-launched Chrome/Edge/Brave/Electron debug browser), then enumerates what can be inspected: live targets, open tabs, accessibility snapshots with refs, and running browsers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two sibling tools by name, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names both alternatives with the conditions that select them: navig_browser_debug_act for interacting with the debug browser, navig_browser_user for the operator's own browser. The schema's enum further specifies per-action semantics, so the when-to-use decision is fully covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.